Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This Office Action is an answer to a communication on 8/11/2026 (an IDS). Claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
3. Applicant filed three IDSs on 11/21/2025, 1/06/2026 and 8/11/2026; they are considered.
Claimed Interpretation
4. Examiner notes that the fundamentals of the rejections are based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. Applicant is kindly invited to consider the reference as a whole. References are to be interpreted as by one of ordinary skill in the art rather than as by a novice. See MPEP 2141. Therefore, the relevant inquiry when interpreting a reference is not what the reference expressly discloses on its face but what the reference would teach or suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
5. Claim limitations “a bike” (see pending claim 1, line 1); and “an electric bike” (see pending claim 17 line 1) having different structures. Thus, it is unclear that these claimed terms are not unique.
- A bike can be run without a power source: a traditional bike
- A bike can be run with/without an electric source: a PEUGEOT mobylette (i.e., Peugeot-102)Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
6. Claims 1, 9, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by Gilles (US Pub 20200223506 A1 – hereafter “Gilles’506”) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Gilles’506.
A, Per independent claims 1, 9, and 17: + Gilles teaches a system, comprising:
a sensor, coupled with a bike, to detect an object (e.g., an object tracking engine 318, see Gilles para. [0025]);
one or more processors, coupled with memory and the sensor (see Gilles para. [0030]); to: determine, “via the sensor”/tracking engine 318, a probability that a trajectory of the object intersects with the bike (see Gilles para. [0035]);
provide, responsive to the probability being greater than or equal to a threshold, an alert via an indicator located on a handlebar of the bike (this “visual alert” limitation has been very common,see Gilles FIG. 3 refs. (running lights 240, alert lights 250, horns 260), para. [0055], and claim 8); and
project, responsive to the probability/indication greater than the threshold, an indication with a light source coupled to the bike to alert a user of the object (e.g., directing a light in the direction of interest, see Gilles, running lights 240, para. [0017]).
PNG
media_image1.png
421
440
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Above picture shows an indicator can be affix on a handlebar of a bike (see Gilles FIG.1 ref 120)
Gilles does not use a claimed word “probability”; however, Gilles may suggest a probability of 100%.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Gilles to suggest a high probability (100%) that a collision would happen to alert a bike operator if the probability with an approaching vehicle is detected (see Gilles para.[0029]).
B. Per dependent claims 3, 11, and 19: The rationales and reference for a rejection of claim 1 are incorporated.
Gilles also suggests a processor to:
receive data corresponding to the object detected by the sensor (see Gilles para.[0030]).
Gilles fails to disclose about a size, and a range from an object; however, Champoux’707:
determine, based on the data, a size of the object (see Champoux’707, col. 12 lines 1-4, and claim 9); and
determine, responsive to the size of the object being within a threshold range (it is understood by one of skill in the art that an ultrasound sensor normally has a “working” range of 8 meters; see also Champoux’707 col 11 line 61 to col. 12 line 4), to provide the alert to a rider of the bike and the visual indication to the user of the object responsive to classification of the object as a threat (e.g., a high probability of a collision).
C. Per dependent claims 5, and 13: The rationales and reference for a rejection of claim 1 are incorporated.
Champoux’707 determines the object is located in a zone established for the bike (see Champoux’707 col. 8 lines 22-33); and
provide the alert to a rider of the bike and the visual indication to the user of the object responsive to the object located in the zone (see Gilles [0015], [0026], [0029], [0036]-[0037], and [0047]) and the probability of that the trajectory intersects with the bike greater than or equal to the threshold (see Gilles para. [0015]).
D. Per dependent claims 6, and 14: The rationales and reference for a rejection of claim 1 are incorporated.
The claims require a processor to determine the probability responsive to a speed of the bike greater than or equal to a second threshold.
Assuming the probability is 100% (i.e., “one or more buffer zones may be defined, with escalating levels of warnings provided”), applicant requires that a bike’s speed is greater than a threshold; this feature is suggested by Gilles (see Gilles para.[0026]).
E. Per dependent claims 7, and 15: The rationales and reference for a rejection of claim 1 are incorporated.
The claims require a processor to generate the alert via a lighting device coupled to the handlebar.
Gilles also suggests this feature: generating the alert via a visual indicator (see Gilles, FIG. 3, para. [0018], [0036]).
A motivation of Gilles para. [0036], and FIG.1: an indicator 120 has been coupled to a handle bar for a user’s convenience if surround environment is dark (within an operator’s view).
7. Claims 2-3, 10-11, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilles, in view of Champoux et al (US Pat. 11623707 B2).
The rationales and reference for a rejection of claim 1 are incorporated.
Per dependent claims 2, 10, and 18: Gilles fails to mention that the sensor is an ultrasonic sensor; however, this sensor has been available to quickly detect objects around a proximity of 8 meters regardless of color, light, or transparency (see Champoux, claim 2) .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Gilles with Champoux because the ultrasonic sensors have been available with discrete/analog outputs, IO-Link compatibility, and ranges up to 8000mm.
B Per dependent claims 3, 11, and 19:
Gilles teaches a structure that can:
receiving, by the processors, data corresponding to the object detected by the sensor;
In addition, Champoux’707 also suggests:
determining, by the processors based on the data, a size of the object; and determining, by the processor responsive to the size of the object being within a threshold range, to provide the alert to the rider and the visual indication to the user of the object responsive to classification of the object as a threat (see Champoux’707 col. 11 line 61 to col. 12 line 4).
8. Claims 4, 12, and 20:are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilles, in view of Champoux‘707, and in view of Rittmueller et al (CA 2246510 C).
The rationales and reference for a rejection of claim 1 are incorporated.
The claims require sensors coupled to the bike, and the one or more processors to:
determine a second size of a second object based on a number of the plurality of sensors that detected the second object (a probability is HIGHY 100% from available sensors while detecting another object, (e.g. Using sensor 414, 416 - see Gilles para. [0030] ); and
block determination of a second probability that a second trajectory of the second object intersects with the bike based on the second size of the second object less than or equal to the threshold (see Rittmueller et al “A second passenger sensing system uses optical or ultrasonic transmitters and sensors to detect the optical and ultrasonic transmitters and sensors are determined. The threshold value is selected such that detected passenger is larger than a predetermined size, smaller than the predetermined size. This capacitive restraint controller 70 ignores collision signals, thereby preventing activation of the airbag 75 in response to a collision signal”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Gilles with Champoux‘707, and with Rittmueller et al to use processors for detection of different objects within a very short instance of time, filtering results by narrow down/comparing results to a threshold in order to preventing unnecessary activations of other bike’s components.
9. Claims 8, and 16:are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilles, in view of Champoux‘707, and in view of Wang et al (US Pat. 11079594 B2).
The rationales and reference for a rejection of claim 1 are incorporated.
Gilles, in view of Champoux‘707 fails to teach that the light source comprises a micro-lensing array projector; however, Wang suggests that claimed limitation (see Wang et al., claim 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Gilles with Wand to project the light source with an available micro-lensing array projector because this would make an array of miniature lenses to shape, focus, or project light into a controlled pattern – which is an expectation of success.
Conclusion
10. Claims 1-20 are rejected.
11. The cited prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Cuong H Nguyen whose telephone number is (571) 272-6759 (email address is cuong.nguyen@uspto.gov). The examiner can normally be reached on M - F: 10:00AM- 6:00PM. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bendidi Rachid can be reached on (571) 272-4896. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PATER. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only, For more information about the PAIR system, see https//ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll- free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or S71-272- 1000.
/CUONG H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights